"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I've been using the mormon church's involvement in the civil rights fight in California to treat most mormons like absolute shit. Its not fair of course, but I find it as hard to care as they care that they are part of a larger organization that used its money/power to hatefully devalue the lives of innocent human beings.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

After all the veiled insults on the first page it gets down to a single response:

Quote

"There is another verse that isn't oft cited that provides a skosh of insight into why a prayer might seemingly have gone unanswered. Romans 8:26-27 provides that insight, noting that we're not actually sure what we really need to be praying about, and that the Spirit (of God) interprets it correctly for us. For instance, if I were to ask in prayer, "God, give me a million dollars." I think that (had you known, you'd might soon after asking recall the stipulation of praying "in his name" and his name isn't "God", plus Christ also chastises a few newbs by retorting, "Why do you call me Lord but don't do what I say?" ..something to think about) a reasonable Spirit-translation might instead be, "Help me to realize how rich I already am," "Help me to appreciate living efficiently," or "Help me to realize that I am neither Aladdin, nor are you some two-bit genie that must obey me, since I dutifully read the entire verse without getting bored." Don't you suppose that God, in his bountiful wisdom, would actually not grant me this prayer, firstly, knowing that I would probably just go blow it all on multiflavor, individually wrapped chunks of saltwater taffy and stockpile a collection of Morning Musume DVDs? By instilling some kind of filtering system, the deeper, inner question could be answered and cancel out the need for such a desire to even warrant asking in the first place (but you don't get that, unless you ask =P).."

But it consists largely of a strawman and an argument from personal incredulity. No one is suggesting prayer being answered is one of frivolous material needs, yet that's exactly the analogy this person goes with for pretty obvious emotional reasons. His rejection of the entire case can be summed up as a rejection from his own personal incredulity and nothing else. We can easily surmise a prayer that benefits all equally, the only way around it is to insert an arbitrary 'greater purpose' as the reason authentic prayers of need go unanswered. The problem with a 'greater purpose' is that it is simply another red herring, since we can always suppose conditions that can be attained for the greater purpose without any conditional context coming before it. IE The greater purpose can be had 'instantly'.

Actually, I do, in fact, have something to say right here!

Omen, your point is exceptionally well stated. We need to explore the question, "If God 'desires' His greater purpose and He's all-powerful, then what is He waiting for?" It's been explored. It was this question that led to the (IMO, ridiculous) Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination--If God wants you saved, then he saves you and there's not much else to talk about. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it logically follows. If God is all-powerful, then human free will has a serious problem.

John Polkinghorne says, "The well-known free will defence in relation to moral evil asserts that a world with a possibility of sinful people is better than one with perfectly programmed machines. The tale of human evil is such that one cannot make that assertion without a quiver, but I believe that it is true nevertheless. I have added to it the free-process defence, that a world allowed to make itself is better than a puppet theatre with a Cosmic Tyrant. I think that these two defences are opposite sides of the same coin, that our nature is inextricably linked with that of the physical world which has given us birth."

I have a similar view influenced by my own Mormon background. I believe that God is working a much greater work than anything visible here. His stated purpose is to make us perfect--perfectly loving, perfectly strong, and perfectly able to live according to the precepts we believe. A world brimming over with evil--that i,s opportunities to choose cruelty and selfishness--is the only place to gain such strength.

But, the question is still, "What is he waiting for?" If He can heal our physical maladies instantly and with ease, why not just create us perfect in the first place? My bold statement is this: When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful. We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God. God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin. You are not clay.

With Polkinghorne, I "quiver" to state that the suffering in the world is toward some good. Easy to state in the abstract, but harder to swallow in the face of actual, specific suffering. It's a little easier when you immerse yourself in a spiritual world view. For me, its much more consistent to consider earthly suffering in the context of an eternal afterlife. This life is very short when compared with eternity. In that sense, earthly suffering is (quivering here) like your football coach pushing you through wind sprints to strengthen you for what lies ahead. Hard, yes, but temporary.

When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful. We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God. God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin. You are not clay.

What else can your god not do? Does it have any other deficiencies à la Achilles?

My bold statement is this: When it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful.

Then your mythological god is not a god, you've contradicted yourself with your first bold statement.

Quote

We are a different kind of thing--begotten and not created by God.

This could only be the case if we are in fact, as omniscient as a god. We are not omniscient.

Quote

God cannot create us perfect and whole without letting us pass through sorrow and sin

This is special pleading and contradictory; If god cannot create perfect humans, then your mythological god is simply not a god and not perfect itself. Trying to plead 'pass through sorrow and sin' do not reasonably answer any for the problems in suggesting a greater purpose, they simply represent a new unexplained condition. I can point it out and repeat what I stated earlier, that a being of absolute ability knows exactly how to achieve its perfect goal without anything coming before it. You're trying to get around all of this by reducing an omnipotent/omniscient beings ability to less than omnipotent and omniscient. I'm going to cry foul.

Quote

is toward some good..

Any statement of arbitrary value is without warrant in a logical discussion, neither extreme of how we feel or project what should be felt has anything to do with determining the truth value of a claim.

I'd love to discuss your objections to the existence of God either here or on my site. Nothing disingenuous about that.

So I have to tell you my objections to what you have supposed to be true for me without explanation?

This is a very important distinction, because constantly religious apologist engage in presuppositional nonsense that has no basis in a rational discussion. If you want to begin an argument for your mythological beliefs feel free, but don't try to presuppose conditions of your belief system as if they were true for people that don't believe them. I don't have to argue or present a disproof against a unprovable or unexplained agent, you are the claimant and you are the only one that possesses the burden of proof. My burden is only supporting possibly counter arguments against your position and is otherwise satisfied by my lack of a belief in your unexplained conditional claims.

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 02:27:44 PM by Omen »

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Thanks for your responses, Omen. (Oh, and to the rest of you, the abuse was nice as well )

I'm not afraid to say "God cannot" with regard to humans. That may violate some pre-defined rule you have about God (speaking of presuppositions), but I guess He's my God to invent so I'll invent him any way I like.

A minor point or two here: I believe God's goal for us is to make us omniscient as He is. And, of course, saying that we are the offspring of deity doesn't imply that we're perfect any more than it follows that my baby son can talk because I can.

Finally, let's set some ground rules vis-a-vis burden of proof. This a site who's contention is that God is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind. My purpose is not to prove the existence of God. Given what God has said about himself, that seems pointless to me. My purpose is to defend the self-consistency of a theistic perspective, with an eye toward enticing you to discover God for yourself. There's more about this on my blog (www.eatnails.net), but if you guys want to keep tighter control, then we'll do this for a while.

Again, your rationalizing towards a context in which you hold all the predetermined answers too. I don't give a shit if you've redefined your make believe deity to be slightly different then the general definition of what is meant when someone uses the word 'god'.

Notice that I don't use the 'god' label in the first person, with a capital G. I also refer to it as a thing, since there are thousands of asserted 'gods'. I no more care about yours without evidence or valid explanations then i do anyone elses and it is not my responsibility to suddenly know something about your superstition that somehow makes it more or less valid without your initial explanation to establish that context.

So don't try to feed me that line of bullshit.

Quote

(speaking of presuppositions)

You couldn't have responded exactly as you did without operating from a presupposed set of conditional beliefs you've offered no original explanation or definition for. Which is exactly why I repeated myself, in emphasizing exactly what I began earlier in forcing you to argue in the affirmative for your claims without presupposing that anyone of us know or give a shit about what you're talking about.

Thank you for doing exactly what I predicted and prepared for you to do.

Quote

but I guess He's my God to invent so I'll invent him any way I like.

Excellent, how will we ever tell the difference between your claimed mythological god and make believe?

This is a forum, represented by thousands of non-believers that operate from thousands of different backgrounds. The religious people that come to this forum also originate from different religious backgrounds.

Quote

who's contention is that God

it addresses a god that is commonly defined and used through the Christian context, it doesn't not address your capital G god since you presuppose all the context without little to no explanation. That being stated, the rest of the forum will happily address the claimed gods of any religion.

Quote

is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind.

Ignoring all the capital G nonsense, this is the general message repeated on the website. Individuals on the forum might have differing or contradictory opinions.

Quote

My purpose is not to prove the existence of God.

Then we are done, you have nothing else to say.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

This is a forum, represented by thousands of non-believers that operate from thousands of different backgrounds. The religious people that come to this forum also originate from different religious backgrounds.

Quote

who's contention is that God

it addresses a god that is commonly defined and used through the Christian context, it doesn't not address your capital G god since you presuppose all the context without little to no explanation. That being stated, the rest of the forum will happily address the claimed gods of any religion.

Quote

is imaginary and that a belief in God is inconsistent with a rational mind.

Ignoring all the capital G nonsense, this is the general message repeated on the website. Individuals on the forum might have differing or contradictory opinions.

My purpose is to defend the self-consistency of a theistic perspective

We can never determine the consistency of your theistic perspective if at all times and places, you can move the goal post however you wish without explanation and never actually argue in the affirmative of your position. Not to mention that you're idiotically trying to draw comparisons between differing ideological systems of belief, as if arguing against one was an identical argument against your own.

Quote

with an eye toward enticing you to discover God for yourself

This will categorically be dishonest and trolling behavior on your part, you're not going to entice anyone to do anything except ridicule you. i can't be enticed to discover what there is no presented evidence for and no attempt to argue the position reasonably to even know what the hell you're talking about.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

I have a similar view influenced by my own Mormon background. I believe that God is working a much greater work than anything visible here. His stated purpose is to make us perfect--perfectly loving, perfectly strong, and perfectly able to live according to the precepts we believe. A world brimming over with evil--that i,s opportunities to choose cruelty and selfishness--is the only place to gain such strength.

And, yet, this still fails to provide one whit of evidence seperating God from any other mythology, and other delusion, any other fiction. Try constructing an argument that does this with a logical fallacy; particularly special pleading or shift of burden of proof.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else. You will never catch me trying to prove the existence of God in an online forum (or anywhere else). My game plan is this:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.3. Invite others to try it.

So, my comments here are mostly in response to challenges to the self-consistency of theism. Omen's question, if I may restate, was "If there were an all-powerful god and he wanted us to be perfect, then why aren't we perfect?" You may have mistaken some of what I said for a proof of God's existence, but I never intended it as such.

I know I've been accused of spamming before, but my blog has a few points related to this. The last of my "Four questions for atheists" (www.eatnails.net/?p=24) is

Are you willing to consider an alternate epistemology, complementing but not supplanting the scientific method? That is, could you accept that there are ways to discover truth about the world that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory?

The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

I really think you guys (Hatter and Omen) have mistaken me for someone else.

No, you're obfuscating tactics are accurately identified and have been challenged. You're simply ignoring what has been said and repeating yourself.

You can't do 1, 2, or 3 without be required to argue in the affirmative for the existence of your god claim. As I pointed out, you would only be engaging in a game of goal shifting as you constantly expect others to argue against your presupposed notions that you can change and rationalize to be anything. Your every claim would be inseparable from make believe or utter bullshit.

So why don't you actually go back and address what was stated instead of equivocating.

Quote

The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

Then you lack any informative context to claim anything about a god, ever.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Thanks for your responses, Omen. (Oh, and to the rest of you, the abuse was nice as well )

Abuse? Is this directed at me?

I don't want to abuse you. Read my last post! I am ecstatic about your visit! Can you answer my questions? I wanted to get some key points nailed in about your belief system before I have any sort of exchange with you.

I gleened what I could from scanning your blog, but there is no replacement for just plain asking.

My questions were:

1) When do you think Native Americans first enhabited North America? 2) Is there anything else your god can't do? (re-phrased lest my comparison to Achilles be interpreted as abuse)3) Can I get you a coffee or tea, or make your stay more enjoyable? (you can ignore this one)

I'm not sure when people first arrived in America (15,000BC, is it?). According to the Book of Mormon, which I believe, groups arrived there from the Middle East in 2500 BC and 600 BC. In anticipation, I'll say that I don't believe that the Nephites are all or even most of the ancestry of the modern Native Americans.

I don't know of anything else God can't do.

No thanks to coffee, tea, booze, soccer on Sunday, premarital sex, profanity or voting Democrat (just kidding with that last one).

could you accept that there are ways to discover truth about the world that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory?

Oh, is that what you meant? Then the answer is easy: no. If I say I see a pink unicorn in my closet and nobody else can see it, which do you think is more likely: that I have a new sense perception that allows me and nobody else to see magical creatures, or that I'm having some kind of hallucination? (Or that I'm just plain lying, for that matter.)

Quote

The existence of God can't be proven. If that's the topic here, then I'm on your side!

Nice to know.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Thanks fizix, I was really hoping for that sex one, as pale sciency computer geeks are well known for their sexual prowess.

Were you brought up in mormonism? Were your parents mormons? And, was mormonism one of the belief systems many people practiced in the place/culture where you were born and raised? (meaning, were you born and raised in Riyahd, Salt Lake City, or somewhere in between?

You sort of remind me of my little girl. She always wants to swim in the deep end of the pool but she doesn't know how to swim and she gets nervous about it. The closer she gets to the deep end the more nervous she gets and starts wanting to get out of the water. If I were to let go of her she would literally panic and drown. Two points for you to consider;

1) You are now in the deep end2) Daddy ain't here to help keep you from drowning

The only way for you to move forward is to address the questions posed to you directly. In other words, stop telling us what you *want* to do and just do it.

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

You sort of remind me of my little girl. She always wants to swim in the deep end of the pool but she doesn't know how to swim and she gets nervous about it. The closer she gets to the deep end the more nervous she gets and starts wanting to get out of the water. If I were to let go of her she would literally panic and drown. Two points for you to consider;

1) You are now in the deep end2) Daddy ain't here to help keep you from drowning

The only way for you to move forward is to address the questions posed to you directly. In other words, stop telling us what you *want* to do and just do it.

I'm trying so hard not to resort to sarcasm here. Which questions did you feel were not adequately addressed?

I am interested in the psychology of belief-type behaviour of all sorts. You know where that last set of questions leads, and that is just something you should sort out on your own. I don't think I will be leading you to any revelations. I imagine physicists are usually averse to effect sizes <.9, so the above-alluded-to artifact is one of the few things I can point you in the direction of.

I noticed in another thread that you are interested in demonstrating the internal consistency of your belief system, axioms granted. And, that you have a "just try it out" offer. I say with a fair degree of certainty that other belief systems from other times, places / cultures have and have had similar standing offers, with as much conviction to back it up.

Have you ever taken anyone up on their offer? Abandoning your belief system, adopting theirs, believing its precepts wholeheartedly and checking the results? Why or why not?

^ the green means I had my admin/mod hat on. Black means I am just a forum member.

Hey! Mormon! Cooool. Mormonism seems pretty full of shit, if I may say so.

How long have Native Americans enhabited North America, fizix?

In some areas we have stuff going back between 12,000 and 40,000 years (and that is just what has been uncovered so far) Some of the elders (not yet scientifically proven) say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000 years

« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 07:28:52 PM by 12 Monkeys »

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

According to the book of Mormon, a people of which no record or evidence exists of, settled in a land where native americans were already present and populated throughout. The book of mormon also claims that horses were present, when horses were not brought to america until the 1600s. This would also include cattle, which is also mentioned and again not present until the thousands of years later. No major animal group is shown to be domesticated in the archaeological record.

The same goes for goats, swine, crops of barley, crops of wheat, and not to mention silk .. which of course was entirely unknown to anyone on the american continent.

on and on and on.

Quote

which I believe,

Of course, completely removing ones self from responsibility or burden of evidence, one can easily introduce 'faith' to justify anything one wishes to believe.

Leprechauns? Faith!

Oh yah.. science can exist along side this.. of course.. no 'science' that actually relies on objective methodologies.. which is all of science.. but science sure.

Logged

"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas. Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

You can't do 1, 2, or 3 without be required to argue in the affirmative for the existence of your god claim. As I pointed out, you would only be engaging in a game of goal shifting as you constantly expect others to argue against your presupposed notions that you can change and rationalize to be anything. -snip-So why don't you actually go back and address what was stated instead of equivocating.

We can not begin to have a meaningful discussion with you until you make a positive claim to back up your desire to:

1. Defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint.2. Outline the method for coming to knowledge of God.3. Invite others to try it.

I'm sorry if it's frustrating, but things simply won't work that way. As I said, A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. There simply is no way to prove God exists. He may only be discovered and then only by one who can answer yes to the following (rapidly becoming my 5th question for atheists) "If God did exist, would you obey Him?"

So, here's a postulate for your consideration. I call it fizixgeek's totally bogus postulate of internet omniscience. Ahem."A truth which is unprovable on a public internet forum is not a truth."

I'm sorry if it's frustrating, but things simply won't work that way. As I said, A spiritual epistemology will embarrass you. There simply is no way to prove God exists. He may only be discovered and then only by one who can answer yes to the following (rapidly becoming my 5th question for atheists) "If God did exist, would you obey Him?"

I am not in the least frustrated, also I feel at this point I should tell you that I am not an atheist. Further, I am not asking you to prove your God or any god's existence. However, you still haven't begun to defend the self-consistency of a theist viewpoint. Nor have you offered to explained what, exactly, you are attempting to defend this viewpoint against.

What IS your method for coming to knowledge of God? And while we are at it what do you mean by "God"? If it is something you just made up what is my incentive to take anything you say about it into consideration?

Quote

So, here's a postulate for your consideration. I call it fizixgeek's totally bogus postulate of internet omniscience. Ahem."A truth which is unprovable on a public internet forum is not a truth."

Pizza is my favorite food. I know this to be true but since there is no way I can prove it on this forum then it is not true? How does that follow?

This is my last post before going to bed, I will read your blog tomorrow. g'night.

Logged

I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.